[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
That there was no discussion about it meant that it was not a reason for objection to the new proposed Constitution and thus it was not needed in the Bill or Rights. And that's why it's not there.

I'm actually in favor of using latitude to interpret the words of the Consitution in new ways as circumstances change. But originalists who claim this is what the 2nd amendment was intended to do--to protect an individual's right to possess weapons outside of the militia--are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's for the sake of argument presume you are correct on this point.

If all males of age of that era were considered to be "the militia" (and I think that they were), then the 2nd Amendment was really drawing no meaningful distinction between "the militia" and "the people" (which could also explain how the terms could have been used interchangeably in the 2nd Amendment). If THAT is the case, then the founders simply presumed that "the people" = "the militia"...and vice versa.

It is the vice versa part that provides the sticky burr against your claim that individual rights were not protected, I think.

If "the people" are considered "the militia" I do see your point, but if "the militia" were also considered to be "the people", then the rights of all males of age to keep and bear ought to be considered protected as well. So the fact that the vice versa would have also been considered to be true, would have enlarged the scope of meaning to the greater group, rather than reducing the scope of meaning to the smaller group.